|
|
|
|
Some of the Fall-Out
from Judge Lambeth's Decision By Dave Andrusko There's been a flurry of developments directly and indirectly related to a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Royce C. Lamberth to prevent the Obama Administration from continuing to fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. As we reported yesterday, Lamberth, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote in his August 23 order that it appeared that the Administration's decision to fund embryonic stem cell (ESC) research was inconsistent with a federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The ruling was preliminary, but the judge ordered the funding to cease while the case progresses. (See https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44.)
First, with no additional detail, the Obama Justice Department said it would appeal Judge Lamberth's 15-page opinion. White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton "said the administration is exploring all possible avenues 'to make sure that we can continue to do this critical lifesaving research,' but he did not specify exactly how it will respond," the Washington Post reported. Second, "The National Institutes of Health said yesterday it will not award new grants or renew existing ones for research on human embryonic stem cells after a federal judge temporarily halted the Obama administration's expansion of federal funding for this research," according to the Boston Globe. "But scientists who have already received federal money, including Harvard Stem Cell Institute researchers, can continue their work on these cells, said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the NIH. The agency has awarded $131 million this year for human embryonic stem cell research." Third, many of the usual pro-embryonic stem cell research boosters uncritically stated that ESC offers unparalleled opportunities (as a USA Today editorial put it) to "people suffering from diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and other afflictions that resist traditional therapies." Of course, it's all "promise," and "potential"--as opposed to over 70 published studies that show promising results utilizing morally unobjectionable adult stem cell research. But, to its credit, the editorial says of the decision "Disappointing but most likely legally correct. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth cited an amendment Congress passed in 1996 that bars any research using cells that come from the destruction of human embryos. That law, Lamberth ruled, trumps an executive order President Obama issued last year aimed at jump-starting research." It then suggests what no doubt many pro-abortion Democrats are already considering: going after the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Collaterally, the New York Times' Gina Kolata began her story yesterday with "The renewed debate over embryonic stem cells highlights the advances and complications that have arisen in the field since its controversial beginnings." Significantly, early on she acknowledges, "Yet despite the high hopes for embryonic stem cells, progress has been slow -- so far there are no treatments with the cells." Kolata uses much of her article to argue that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) have problems of their own, meaning that embryonic stem cell research must go forward, if for that reason alone. (iPS cells result when human skin cells are genetically reprogrammed--sent "back in time"-- becoming essentially indistinguishablefrom human embryonic stem cells.) Unfortunately there is only one passing reference to adult stem cells. Even more intriguing is a very thoughtful piece at Slate.com. Written by Emily Yoffe, it's headlined, "Where are the cures promised by stem cells, gene therapy, and the human genome?"). It is very much worth reading (www.slate.com/id/2264401/pagenum/all/#p2). Yoffee's summary is helpful for many reasons, not the least of which is her counsel against over-hyping "breakthroughs." Her report reminds us that the "wonder cure" of the 1980s for diseases like Parkinson's was supposedly scooping out the brains of aborted babies and depositing it in the skulls of Parkinson's patients. It never worked and had horrific side effects. In addition, "getting stem cells to work in the human body is neither an easy nor necessarily benign process," she writes. "Researchers are concerned that stem cells, once let loose, might take a wrong turn; heart cells, for instance, could end up in the brain. They could also proliferate excessively, causing damage to nearby tissues. They could generate tumors." There will be additional developments from Judge Lamberth's decision, which we will keep you up to speed on. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
